Author
Topic: Did the Pope miss this passage? (Read 21504 times)

As I remind myself and my family & friends, their are deceivers, betrayers, slanderers etc amongst us always, and at times we are those wandering into the darkness & shadows, sometimes intentionaly and unintentionaly, hopefully the latter. There are no boundaries for this human condition.

The Lord and Apostles suffered the same.(not them, but those around them, except- Judas)

Just philosophiizeing a bit without the aid of chemicals or beverage

james

« Last Edit: December 20, 2004, 02:32:55 PM by Jakub »

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

We all know that the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that such matters are a terrible sin and that people sin.

I did not mean to sound overly harsh in my last post it is nevertheless a valid concern. To be quite frank, I think that if the Latins move towards conservative Orthodox theology the door would begin to open for the undefined way of being that exists in Orthodoxy.

Your friend,

Matthew who very much respects your opinions.

That wasn't harsh, and I wasn't offended. After all, I'm the one that comes to this Orthodox site to argue for something that most of the participants are against: reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. If I couldn't withstand a little bluntness, what would that say for my position? But you may notice that my postings have become less frequent. This is because all of my arguments for reunion have been met with the irrefutable "but we don't want to." What can I say to that but "you don't have to"?

Oh that our SSPX contributors could return to the good old days when the but "you don't have to"? was not an option. We might with Galileo have been the recipients of a decree of the inquisition to help us along in our understandings and unity would be achieved.

Matthew and gphadraig, who agrees with those things now (even though the Galileo affair was more complicated than your making it)? I'm not going to get into a debate about who has the most historical screw ups. After all, until Reggie Jackson came along Babe Ruth held the record for the most lifetime strike outs. Dialogue between us, to be meaningful, should focus on events that can be remembered by people who have yet to pass on.

I am Orthodox, and I believe in the Orthodox Church's teaching regarding Church governance and the Ecumenical Councils. But one thing I've realized in my studies, which we Orthodox must never forget, is that during the major Christological controversies of the first several centuries AD the Patriarch of Rome always came down on the side of Orthodoxy (give or take a couple of blips, later corrected). Indeed, he was often the key figure in the debate (e.g., Pope Leo's Tome).

But you may notice that my postings have become less frequent. This is because all of my arguments for reunion have been met with the irrefutable "but we don't want to." What can I say to that but "you don't have to"?

Speaking personally, I do want union; I simply am not sure that the method you propose is the way to go about it.

Dealing with the divisive issues before union. It is certainly going to be an uphill struggle, but less fraught with danger than pursuing union first and then dealing with issues.

I can go with that, as long as it's done in a real ecumenical council, as opposed to joint statements, subcomittees and the like. In other words, I want something done that will make it happen, not another statement that we share much in common, "but unfortunately...."

The bishops from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches coming together in one place and agreeing to iron out the disputes, not leaving until an agreement is reached, amd concluding with a proclamation of unity.

The bishops from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches coming together in one place and agreeing to iron out the disputes, not leaving until an agreement is reached, amd concluding with a proclamation of unity.

Perhaps this has already been mentioned (I have not read all the posts in this thread) but Meyendorff in one of his books shows that at the Council of Florence, communion was restored BEFORE the Council between East and West because the idea was that one had to be in union to have a council together (of course that council bombed but...)

I was responding to Mor Ephrem's suggestion that diffferences should be ironed out before reunion takes place, and telling him how I think it would work. I realize that many are against the idea of reunion. Also I was responding to Tom's "never happen" remark. My response was "says who?" which was a way of asking whether he means that he thinks the bishops would never do it, or that he was opposed to such an idea.

Also I was responding to Tom's "never happen" remark. My response was "says who?" which was a way of asking whether he means that he thinks the bishops would never do it, or that he was opposed to such an idea.

I certainly am not opposed to the idea. I just believe that it will never happen because the age of kings and pontifs has passed. We now live in the "age of enlightenment" and freedom and rights of the individual. The days when any one individual holds the level of power and respect needed to force an agreement of a council has passed.

I'm not sure if that is true. There are many who don't want a certain kind of reunion, but if the opportunity for a genuine reunion presented itself, I am not sure that the voices of those against would outweigh those in favour. Maybe I'm naive, but I wouldn't see the point in that.

OK, just for the sake of argument, what do you suppose would be on the "plates" of both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops should a council ever be called? And since agreements usually require some compromises, what would be their compromises?

Of course they are. Bishops come to the council with differing views and, hopefully, leave with the same view. That's what ecumenical councils do--they resolve questions.

Perhaps that is the Latin view, Jack. But this supports why TomS's "never happen" is true. Ecumenical councils are not political Give & Take compromise sessions but a meetings of the guardians of the Church to discern what has been believed in all places at all times specific to an issue or heresy. Bishops may discuss issues, but they do not introduce, in the Orthodox Catholic Church, innovations. One only needs to look at the failed councils of 1271 and 1439 to see that folly. Or am I wrong?

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Ecumenical councils are not political Give & Take compromise sessions but a meetings of the guardians of the Church to discern what has been believed in all places at all times specific to an issue or heresy. Bishops may discuss issues, but they do not introduce, in the Orthodox Catholic Church, innovations. One only needs to look at the failed councils of 1271 and 1439 to see that folly. Or am I wrong?

Perhaps we are speaking past each other, but I am not sure if Jack would disagree with this. A general council is not summoned for the sake of having one, but is called to respond to some problem(s) which cannot be resolved without it. Bishops discuss issues precisely because they have differing opinions on what has been believed "in all places at all times", but they discern what truly that is, and make their decisions. There is no question of "innovation" or "compromising the truth" in this, and the reception of a council as ecumenical is testimony to that fact.

In a sense I think Tom is right, but perhaps not in precisely the way he says it.

In a sense, general councils have been impossible since Chalcedon, because the various septs of the church have been able to maintain their political integrity in the face of condemnation. Therefore, they in a sense get conducted by those ecumenist Protestant theologians who go back and evaluate the various arguments from the various sides and come up with a consensus. The score thus far: Nicea yes, Chalcedon and Ephesus yes-sort-of, Trullo right out.

A fair question and one that needs something other than an off the cuff response. I will come after St Spyridon's day.......

To everyone who celebrates Christmas or the Nativity of Our Lord tomorrow, may I wish God's blessings upon on the day and throughtout the coming (civil) new year....... And to those who are working, seperated from family and friends - especially servicemen and women - and those who are volunteers giving of their time to others a special thought.

I'm not sure if that is true. There are many who don't want a certain kind of reunion, but if the opportunity for a genuine reunion presented itself, I am not sure that the voices of those against would outweigh those in favour. Maybe I'm naive, but I wouldn't see the point in that.

I'm not saying that most people are against reunion. But whenever I talk about it at this site it seems that there are many who are against the idea except in the sense that they would welcome the Catholic Church's submission to Orthodoxy. Now, of course, that is a most unlikely prospect. When one side says we'll have reunion as soon as the other side admits that they are wrong and we are right, indeed, that we won't even meet with the other side until that happens, I surmise that the one side isn't really interested in reunion. I suspect that is because the one side believes that they are complete in themselves, and that the other side lacks a measure of validity. On that last point I have seen the position posted at this site that it cannot be said with certainty that the sacraments I receive at my Catholic parish are true sacraments. If that is the Orthodox consensus, it is hard to see how the Orthodox could consider Catholics as equal partners in discussions directed toward unity.

Now I don't want to put words in your mouth as to what "genuine" reunion would constitute. Many at this site have said that genuine reunion would require that both sides come to an agreement on a number of what I suppose they consider essential points, though I've not seen a complete list, and I imagine that different people would have different lists. On the essential points that have been mentioned it has been said that that the Catholics would have to agree with the Orthodox position. But, if truth be told, I am certain that the Catholics would demand that the Orthodox come to agree with the Catholic position on many points. Perhaps this is a situation where an emperor would come in handy, to force everyone to the table at the point of a sword, and maybe TomS is right when he says that that's what it would take to bring about a general council. But I hope for better from us and our bishops.

I know I have my own ideas of what would constitute "genuine" reunion. But I know that my ideas are, ultimately, unimportant. What is important is what the Holy Spirit wants. I believe in my Catholic faith. But I am not afraid of having all bishops in apostolic succession convening in a general council to let the Holy Spirit speak through them. I am afraid of letting the scandal of our continued separation continue to be a spectacle before the world to the detriment of the spread of the gospel.

Why do I talk about these things at this site? Because I think that if enough laypeople agree that reunion is important, that it may become important to our respective hierarchies.

OK, just for the sake of argument, what do you suppose would be on the "plates" of both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops should a council ever be called? And since agreements usually require some compromises, what would be their compromises?

JoeS 8

Although the point I am about to make has met with some derision in the past, I'll say it anyway. I firmly believe that if all sides submitted to the Holy Spirit and met in an ecumenical council they would find out that the disagreements were more imagined than real.

Perhaps we are speaking past each other, but I am not sure if Jack would disagree with this. A general council is not summoned for the sake of having one, but is called to respond to some problem(s) which cannot be resolved without it. Bishops discuss issues precisely because they have differing opinions on what has been believed "in all places at all times", but they discern what truly that is, and make their decisions. There is no question of "innovation" or "compromising the truth" in this, and the reception of a council as ecumenical is testimony to that fact.

I'm not saying that most people are against reunion. But whenever I talk about it at this site it seems that there are many who are against the idea except in the sense that they would welcome the Catholic Church's submission to Orthodoxy. Now, of course, that is a most unlikely prospect. When one side says we'll have reunion as soon as the other side admits that they are wrong and we are right, indeed, that we won't even meet with the other side until that happens, I surmise that the one side isn't really interested in reunion. I suspect that is because the one side believes that they are complete in themselves, and that the other side lacks a measure of validity. On that last point I have seen the position posted at this site that it cannot be said with certainty that the sacraments I receive at my Catholic parish are true sacraments. If that is the Orthodox consensus, it is hard to see how the Orthodox could consider Catholics as equal partners in discussions directed toward unity.

Dear Jack,I do not believe that submission is the proper word to use above. We Orthodox do not expect a submission by the Church of Rome, but a return to Orthodoxy, its Orthodoxy - that which it had and upheld in the past. On the other hand, Orthodoxy's accepting Rome's positions WOULD be a submission. And it won't happen.Sorry for my toughts being so simplistic, but they are what they are.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

[I do not believe that submission is the proper word to use above. We Orthodox do not expect a submission by the Church of Rome, but a return to Orthodoxy, its Orthodoxy - that which it had and upheld in the past. On the other hand, Orthodoxy's accepting Rome's positions WOULD be a submission. And it won't happen.Sorry for my toughts being so simplistic, but they are what they are.]

Exactly! Rather than submission, all the Orthodox Catholic Church expects of the Church of Rome is a return to that which it once was. To the time when we both shared the same faith. The faith of the basically undivided church of the first millenium and the seven Ecumenical Councils.

It isn't expecting it to accept new or changed doctrines or anything that it never believed before.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

As I previously wrote I would give an answer as to my reservations regarding the writings of the late Father John Meyendorf.

He was a professor of Patristics at St Vladimir's Seminary and wrote extensively. For many non-Orthodox and for those who had grown up in an eastern Europe where religion had long been suppressed he was a window on the Orthodox Church. For this he is owed a debt, which I am happy to acknowledge.

However, he was a modernist and his writings distort our understanding of Orthodoxy. Indeed he appears to have been greatly influenced by western understanding, thinking and ecumenism. This is not simply my view but has been written or said of him by others.

Recently there were reports of the (Russian Orthodox) Bishop of Yekaterinburg ordering students in a school to burn all books by the the heretical writers, Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorf and Alexander Menn. Of the three I have no knowledge of the writings of the third but have read some of the writings of the first two. Most recently were some of those of the late Father Alexander Schemann. While I tend to stick warning labels in books that deviate from Orthodoxy, where appropriate in my library of books, book burning is not my fort+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬.

Such are my reservations. I do not intend to get into some debate on this. If others want to and are so minded, fine.

When one side says we'll have reunion as soon as the other side admits that they are wrong and we are right...I suspect that is because the one side believes that they are complete in themselves, and that the other side lacks a measure of validity.

You suspect right.

Quote

If that is the Orthodox consensus, it is hard to see how the Orthodox could consider Catholics as equal partners in discussions directed toward unity.

We don't.

Quote

I am afraid of letting the scandal of our continued separation continue to be a spectacle before the world to the detriment of the spread of the gospel.

It is embarassing for Christian confessions to be at odds w/one another. But to say that our doctrinal differences aren't to be taken seriously enough to acknowledge a schism? That's the primary reason why so many mainline Protestant denominations, determined precisely not to "stick to their guns," are losing members by the millions. No thanks.

Quote

Why do I talk about these things at this site? Because I think that if enough laypeople agree that reunion is important, that it may become important to our respective hierarchies.

We agree that reunion is important. We just so happen also to agree with our heirarchs' conditions of said reunion.

As I previously wrote I would give an answer as to my reservations regarding the writings of the late Father John Meyendorf.

He was a professor of Patristics at St Vladimir's Seminary and wrote extensively. For many non-Orthodox and for those who had grown up in an eastern Europe where religion had long been suppressed he was a window on the Orthodox Church. For this he is owed a debt, which I am happy to acknowledge.

However, he was a modernist and his writings distort our understanding of Orthodoxy. Indeed he appears to have been greatly influenced by western understanding, thinking and ecumenism. This is not simply my view but has been written or said of him by others.

Recently there were reports of the (Russian Orthodox) Bishop of Yekaterinburg ordering students in a school to burn all books by the the heretical writers, Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorf and Alexander Menn. Of the three I have no knowledge of the writings of the third but have read some of the writings of the first two. Most recently were some of those of the late Father Alexander Schemann. While I tend to stick warning labels in books that deviate from Orthodoxy, where appropriate in my library of books, book burning is not my fort+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬.

Such are my reservations. I do not intend to get into some debate on this. If others want to and are so minded, fine.

Dear gphadraig,

If you don't want to debate these questions, then perhaps you shouldn't post your opinions here at all. This board is precisely such a place to discuss these issues. The statements you make here are very provocative to some of us, and you do not back up your claims with many arguments, except to say that one bishop and other people who are not named call Schmemann and Meyendorff heretics or close to it. I have quite a different view, and consider them to be articulate and creative spokesmen for Orthodoxy.

"He was a modernist." Says who? It's so easy to dismiss someone by throwing out this term indiscriminately, and I see nothing in his writings to support this. Of course, he interracted with the West and western thinkers. Some people who do this sometimes go too far, I am sure. In today's western academic world, it is very difficult to remain isolated and to not interact with your western colleauges, and I am sure that it is possible that he may have fallen into the temptation of interracting too much at some points. For myself, I wish that we Orthodox in the West had stronger monastic communities present to keep us closer to the straight and narrow path. You yourself are interracting with the West by posting things on this website that people of western communions read and respond to. Should I therefore now accuse you of ecumenism? I suppose your thoughts expressed here may mean that you consider me and all of my ilk to be "modernist." This makes me sad. Of course, I would also criticize things written by Schmemann and Meyendorff. They are not perfect, far from it. Neither, I am sure, are any of the theologians that you may care to champion, since all of us humans fall short of the glory of God.

If you could tell me why you think such things about Meyendorff or Schmemann, I might even agree with you on some points. Please do correct me if I am wrong, but the message I am getting from your post is that me and others like me are beyond discussing things with, since we are somehow less than Orthodox in your estimation, and have nothing of any intrinsic value to say. If this is truly your attitude, perhaps you should only post on traditionalist web sites, where all the other posters will reflect your views.

I consider myself no less traditionalist than anyone of one of the traditionalist groups who post here. I am not a "modernist", and I would frankly resent being styled as such by those who are unwilling to even deign to discuss issues with me or others.

Dear Jack,I do not believe that submission is the proper word to use above. We Orthodox do not expect a submission by the Church of Rome, but a return to Orthodoxy, its Orthodoxy - that which it had and upheld in the past. On the other hand, Orthodoxy's accepting Rome's positions WOULD be a submission. And it won't happen.Sorry for my toughts being so simplistic, but they are what they are.

Demetri

Well, to me it would be submission. For example, I am persuaded, for reasons that I've posted before, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. I am also persuaded, for reasons that I haven't posted as thoroughly, that the Pope is more than first in honor among the bishops. My acquiescence in the Orthodox position on these points would, therefore, have to be a kind of submission. When one side says that the other side must agree on all points before the Eucharist will be shared they are asking for a kind of submission. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in itself. But it does thwart any ecumenical dialogue.

[I do not believe that submission is the proper word to use above. We Orthodox do not expect a submission by the Church of Rome, but a return to Orthodoxy, its Orthodoxy - that which it had and upheld in the past. On the other hand, Orthodoxy's accepting Rome's positions WOULD be a submission. And it won't happen.Sorry for my toughts being so simplistic, but they are what they are.]

Exactly! Rather than submission, all the Orthodox Catholic Church expects of the Church of Rome is a return to that which it once was. To the time when we both shared the same faith. The faith of the basically undivided church of the first millenium and the seven Ecumenical Councils.

It isn't expecting it to accept new or changed doctrines or anything that it never believed before.

It is embarassing for Christian confessions to be at odds w/one another. But to say that our doctrinal differences aren't to be taken seriously enough to acknowledge a schism? That's the primary reason why so many mainline Protestant denominations, determined precisely not to "stick to their guns," are losing members by the millions. No thanks.

We agree that reunion is important. We just so happen also to agree with our heirarchs' conditions of said reunion.

So, you see Pedro, if that's the Orthodox position then we're at an impasse as far as reunion goes. But you'll understand if I say that reunion cannot be important to the Orthodox in that case. What the Orthodox Church must want is conversion to Orthodoxy. That's a legitimate position to hold, but it is not legitimate to say that you want reunion when what you really want is conversion.

Moreover, since given your position we are actually different religions, there can be no objection to Catholics seeking converts in Russia. Nor can there be an objection to the presence of Eastern Catholic churches in that region (provided, of course, that there is full disclosure). Why would you expect us to recognize patriarchal territories if those territories have no more to do with us than they do with a Presbyterian or even a Buddhist?

I have immense respect for the Orthodox Church. I admire its respect for tradition, its free thinking mysticism, and its liturgy. I think the Orthodox Church has the correct position on confirmation and communion for infants. But the Orthodox will have to decide whether we Catholics are part of the same religion or a different one. You cannot have it both ways.